Singularity Vs Quantum Theory of Gravity

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Feb 15, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No that is just another of your many lies throughout many threads.
    It was answered in post 466.

    Oh grow up Rajesh, you are acting like a spoilt little girl. Really how old are you?
    Let me once again explain it to you, Estimations on the numbers of stars in our galaxy vary between 100 billion and 400 billion......
    Now which number was there an increase inferred on in the article.
    The article speaks of distribution of population numbers above and below the galactic center, and in line with the corrugations. [Oh and btw, no Super Suns were mentioned....nudge, nudge, wink, wink

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And if there was an increase in numbers [which is always up for refinement, since counting the numbers of stars is impossible] it would certainly be well within the current estimate parameters of 100 and 400 billion.
    No mention at all of total population of stars increasing, just as no professors ever said that a Kerr BH and its mass does not spin]

    All this exercise is, is just a continuation of the childish nonsense in earlier threads I referenced plus your crazy notions in general about BHs
    That plus your many inferences, re the supposed errors in modern day cosmology and the mistakes are evidence that you are no more than another anti mainstream science troll, with plenty of talk, plenty of handwaving nonsensical scenarios, ,plenty of arrogance, but no evidence at all or references to support your view...the view of a lay person with delusions of grandeur based on less then 12 months perusal of probably crank material.
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    There goes our spoilt child again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No references, no qualifications. no learning, just the agenda that is so obvious in four or five threads.

    U really doubt that you understand what you are posting.
    No mention of increase stellar population was mentioned in the discovery of the corrugated distribution of those stars.
    Even a spoilt child could understand that.

    Coming from someone who has mangled all we know about BH cosmology, coming from someone who claims he has insight into some new galactic orbital scenario of our solar system, coming from someone who claims our Sun orbits a superSun, I'm sure all our peers on this forum know exactly who is trolling.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Earlier you claimed you did not make errors Rajesh...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So far in this thread and other threads. you have got the following grossly wrong.....
    [1]You question the existance of BHs, without being able to offer an alternative.
    [2] You question the fact that gravity inside BHs can and do overcome the strong nuclear force.....
    [3] You question the fact that we can and are able to assign angular momentum to a Kerr BH and its mass.
    [4] You question the fact that any light/photons emitted this side of the EH, directly radially away will appear to hover forever, from a local FoR.
    [5]You claim without question that one can meaningfully talk of BH density
    [6] You question how they are able to distinguish between a lensed image and a real direct image.
    All the above have been referenced and linked and all support what I have said.

    Why not come clean, thank me for putting you on the correct path, and humbly apologise for the myriads of time you have tried to mislead the forum.
    It will do your heart good.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Yes, but you and OnlyMe have not understood ! Why ? Is it so difficult after so much of put down arguments..

    I will add on to what QuarkHead said.....It is not necessary that by giving reference or by reading paper, one understands the meaning thereof.

    Both you and OnlyMe have amply proved that, the worst part is both of you are still arguing and trolling.....

    Summary of the paper (Prior and post)

    Cosmologists were not able to come to a definite conclusion about some high density structures beyond 50,000 light yeard from galactic center...the point of dispute was whether these structures are part of our Milky way disk or some external source structures......they could not have been taken as part of our MW because the existing mathematical model (since 1992) was giving almost no significant density structures beyond 50,000 light years from GC (outer limit of MW till yesterday)...So this study proposed a different structure (corrugated) which brings in these outer end high density structures in the ambit of our MW..........So obviously if a consensus is developed on this new proposed formulation of our MW disk (model), then all the stars mass (which are present between 100,000 light years to 150,000 light years) will be part of our MW, thus revising the mass estimate of Milky way...............This is the paper in nutshell.

    These two guys are stuck that "Only distribution is increased not the mass".......The statement itself is ridiculous....Do they understand the meaning of this funny statement which they are pushing in this forum.
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    That is not the issue. My understanding of the issue is that you said you thought the paper was implying that the mass of the milky way was actually 50% more massive that previously thought and that this supports your conjecture.
  9. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    What paper are you quoting? .... Or is that your own summary?

    The corrugated galaxy paper, associated with the OP in the thread where this discussion should be taking place, can be found at

    Please provide a link to and better reference for the paper's conclusions that supports your above claim.

    BTW if as you said above, "Cosmologists were not able to come to a definite conclusion about some high density structures beyond 50,000 light yeard from galactic center", any speculation associated with anything beyond 50,000 LY from the galactic center, would likely not make into a statement of fact by a reputable cosmologist. It would first need to be confirmed...

    And you do seem to add a great deal of unnecessecary personalized comment. Why not just stick to facts.., and provide some reference and/or links that allow others to fact check your conclusions?


    The corrugated galaxy: @
  10. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    You are just bluffing the entire forum, without reading the paper........without knowing anything at all.......

    It is shocking that you claim to have read the paper and quote from the same and do not even know the essence of the same...You are an intellectually dishonest man......I thought you will learn, I made a judgemental mistake.....people like you can never grow beyond certain level...

    Read the below extract from the paper.........

    keep in mind that 1 kpc = 3260 Light Years, this will help you in understanding the figures, 50000 Lys, 100000 Lys, 150000 Lys.. roughly

    More than a decade ago, an apparent ring of stars was discovered at low Galactic latitude
    near the Galactic anti-center, at an estimated distance of 18 kpc from the Galactic center
    (Newberg et al. 2002; Yanny et al. 2003; Li et al. 2012); this structure has been called the
    Monoceros Ring, but some authors have called it the Monoceros Overdensity or the Galactic
    Anticenter Stellar Stream (Crane et al. 2003; Rocha-Pinto et al. 2003). After more than a
    decade, it is still uncertain whether this structure is associated with the disk (a warp, flare,
    wave perturbation or spiral arm) or the halo component of the Milky Way (dwarf galaxy
    accretion). Initially, the community was divided over the origin of the Monoceros Ring,
    which was thought to be associated with an accreting dwarf galaxy (Martin et al. 2004;
    Pe˜narrubia et al. 2005), or the normal Galactic warp/flare profiles (Momany et al. 2004,
    More recently the possibility that the structures are a result of an encounter with a
    massive satellite (Kazantzidis et al. 2008; Younger et al. 2008) has been put forward; it is
    suggested that the massive satellite could be the Sagitarius dwarf galaxy (Purcell et al.


    If the Monoceros and TriAnd rings are in the outer disk, then the
    stellar disk extends to at least 25 kpc from the Galactic center. Previous measurements of
    the disk scale length and the observation of a sharp cutoff in stellar density about 15 kpc
    from the Galactic center (Robin et al. 1992) should be re-examined in light of the observed
    oscillations of the disk midplane.

  11. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    What is your opinion about the conclusion of this paper ?
    And in what way it would fine tune (rather change substantially) the ratio between dark matter and visible matter in our Galaxy ?
    If this ratio changes, then certainly the Galaxy Speed Distribution Calculations get affected, because DM was conceptualize at the first place to account for this.
    So MOND is at problem, DM gets changed, then certainly there is an opening for new theory.....thats what I said in that post in response to Paddo's_Self_Redeem_Digging_Exercise......any problems in the theory, you can pin point.
  12. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    It is an interesting paper that seems plausible, we will see how it holds up.
    An extremely minor change.
    A fine tuning to the ratios are so minor that there would be no affect to the DM theory.
    I see no issue with the theory about DM from this paper. I am not a fan of MOND, I see WIMPs as the most likely explanation.
  13. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Again you begin with patronizing comment, that says more about you than anyone else!

    Note the bold emphasis in your quote below. I re quoted it from the paper for easier emphasis.

    Rajesh, it is slowly becoming clear that you whole arguement is based on your own interpretation, of what you think, not what the authors of the paper have concluded.

    BTW even if at some time in the future the consensus is that the Milky Way is 150 LY across instead of 100 LY, how would the addition of mass outside a star's galactic orbit account for the the required increase dark mater inside its orbit?

    Try to answer questions or better present your opinion, instead of continually spamming the thread with patronizing commentary.
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Origin, I am not fond of MOND either, at least in its current form. But I am not yet willing to discard the basic concept. I am not certain we will have any realistic chance of better explanations, of the underlying observations, until we have a working QTG.., which seems still some distance in the future.
  15. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Time will tell. With all of the work trying to find WIMPs I would imagine we should see something one way or the other concerning the basics of DM in the next couple of years. As far a QTG? Maybe within the next 20 years?
  16. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    I thought this from Wiki on Milky Way @, interesting since the discussion is whether cosmologist have missed part of the Milky Way that extends its diameter from 100,000 LY to 150,000 LY.

    The 100,000-12o,ooo number is dated 1/20/2015.
    The 150,000-180,000 number is dated 3/11/2015 and references a press release, about the paper being discussed, not the paper itself.., still notice the may be in bold. Still in question.
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Therein lies the reason why you have so much wrong, particularly re BH cosmology.
    While you continue to ignore reputable links [other than the ocassional that support your own view] and while you continue to interpret cosmology only your way, you will be refuted and confronted with that same idiotic agenda.
    I speak for myself, despite your many inferences to the contrary.
    It is you trolling, it is you claiming many things particularly your view with regard to BH cosmology, that have been 100% totally refuted.
    From my perspective, that will keep happening.

    Oh, again Rajesh, grow up.
    You have yet to be correct on any issue of BH cosmology and the "subject"of this thread.
    Desperation times at hand me thinks.
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Rajesh....I have a genuine question.
    At times your posts do reflect a type of "professionalism" although in near all cases, the wrong conclusion is arrived at. In this exercise though, I am ignoring your mountain of personal retributions, inuendos, unsupported accusations and dishonest misinterpretation, and concentrating on your small science content.
    In light of that "apparent professionalism" how and why did you start threads asking very basic cosmological questions such as the following.....


    In light of those rather contradictory threads, AId labelled you a "hoaxter" and I have mentioned a few times that you come across as fraudulent.

    Can you see the inconsistency you continually exhibit?
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2015
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I also disregard MOND and actually see it as pretty fragile in its inconsistencies.
    Agreed also that DM is not in any way questioned, and its existence is just as well supported as always.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    And that obviously is the overall goal of this exercise evident in almost a half a dozen threads now.....ignore accepted interpretation, ignore any links invalidating his own interpretation, and trying his damdest to invalidate the modern cosmology model.....All after an exhausting 12 months perusal of the subject

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The mind boggles.........and incidentally exactly why I have raised his past threads highlighting the same agenda, to remind people of his obvious intentions not just on this matter, but the matter of this thread originally in the first place, and the matter of the other BH threads.
    a recent example from this thread......

    It's called "grasping at straws"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    To put that more factually, It is not necessary that by expressing personal opinions based on less than 12 months perusal, and claiming our solar system orbits a Super Sun, among equally stupid claims re BHs, that that person understands his own diatribe and the fact that they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
  22. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member


    Why do you and OnlyMe think that 12 months is not sufficient, it is more than sufficient.

    ......In general an undergraduate program is of 4 years, say a course in engineering.
    ......A masters program is around 2 years duration.
    ......An engineer, say electrical, can enroll in a masters program on a topic on Astronomy / Astrophysics.
    ......There are many students who enroll in the masters program and get their work published within a year.

    So time factor of 12 months is not an issue......
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Deleted, it's late!

Share This Page